When wolves hunt caibou, they disembowel them first. Then they eat their prey while she is still alive....I don't mean this as a metaphor for anything. Just wanted to bring this up because I heard someone criticizing Palin last night because she authorized the hunting of wolves from helicopters while she was governor....People are so quick to criticize humans for hunting wolves and so loathe to criticize the unethical hunting habits of wolves. Such hypocritical pro wolf chauvinism should disturb all fair minded Americans.

Nice little ad. Voters already hate lawyers, and airdropping an "opposition research" team sure sounds like the old politics that O pledged to end. Team McCain must be enjoying O's seemingly endless fixation on Gov Palin, along with Team O's strange tactic of repeatedly inserting foot into mouth every time they try to deal with her. To be fair, that's not surprising when it's Biden doing the inserting. But I think most people thought O was smarter than that.

Remember how everyone marveled at Team O's skill during the primaries -- his ability to fend off Hillary!, to get past the Rev Wright/Bill Ayers stuff and (mostly) keep his perspective? Not now. It almost seems like a different bunch is in charge of the O campaign, and they've suddenly forgotten how this game is played. His scowly little temper tantrum this morning, complaining about the media's focus on "phony issues" like lipstick on a pig, was pathetic. And this is the guy who was pointing to his ability to run a campaign as the "executive experience" he wants to trumpet as more significant that Gov Palin's executive jobs?

That he's gotten himself all tangled up in the Palin sweepstakes like this, that he has allowed his narrative to become tied to hers -- indeed, has done it to himself by insisting on contrasting his record to hers -- is dangerously playing to all his weaknesses. I suspect that Team McCain will happily keep taking advantage for as long as O insists on shooting himself in the foot. Watch tomorrow when Gov Palin uses it all to skewer O during her interview with Charlie Gibson -- she'll do it in a funny, can you believe this?, kind of way, while brushing aside all the attacks with a little "there they go again" breeziness.

There are no Obama opposition researchers in Alaska. I live here, I know people in the campaigns, and it's just not true.

I would put the burden of proof on McCain to prove it, and not just by citing an unsourced blog. What other proof do they have? Let's demand more from the campaigns when they make accusations like this.

This place is crawling with journalists, yes. (And we'd like them to go away.) But the Obama campaign has added no new staff here since the Palin announcement. In fact, most have left town.

One of the recurrent themes amongst Hillary supporters is that their party (the DNC) didn't do enough to defend Hillary against the rampant sexism coming from the Obama campaign.

Ever since Palin was selected, there has been comment after comment on their forums about how they think that the DNC should "watch and see" how a party should defend one of its own from similar treatment because they knew the Republicans would react strongly if Obama tried the same misogynistic tactics against Palin.

I think this ad is directed primarily at trying to peel off more and more of those supporters who are mad at the DNC for its silence in the face of slights such as giving Hillary the finger, brushing off his shoulders and wiping his shoes during debates with her, his various well-documented comments regarding her gender, etc.

It's particularly brilliant to come out with this ad on the heels of the "pig/lipstick" controversy: get to those voters at the height of their indignation when they are most likely to make the emotional decision to leave the DNC behind and vote for McCain/Palin to "teach the DNC a lesson about taking women for granted."

Dave, you're in Anchorage; can you speak for what's happening in Juneau?

"It wasn't supposed to be like this!"

Quite. McCain was supposed to pick someone dull as a running mate, then shuffle off quietly into the night so that the coronation could begin. Really, when you think about it, it's all his fault that the Obama folks have had to descend to this level. If you evil rethuglican fucks would only lay down and die, the leftosphere, the media and the Obamabots could stop shivving you!

As to the ad - a little weak. They could do better. I liked the idea someone mentioned - Victoria, I think - in the other thread: Palin can say she's been called worse by better.

I live in a town of 5,000 people and I don't know nearly half of them. But you live in a state with a population over 100 times that and you can state with absolute certainty that there are no DNC lawyers there?

Given the campaign's talking points that they haven't sent anyone from "NY or Chicago", I highly doubt that they would admit it to anyone outside the campaign in any case - and that's provided that they were even in an actual position to know in the first place.

Sorry Dave, you're going to have to do much better than that...this doesn't even pass the laugh test...

The whole meme coming out of McCain's ads, is to portray Obama as being just plain "mean." Not tough, but mean. Sending operatives to dig up dirt is not being tough its mean. Calling someone a pig in the way he did it is not a funny quip, its mean.

Now, personally I don't have a problem with mean, but mean doesn't help you win the "who would you rather have a beer with" contest.

I like Palin, but I am ambivalent about this ad. I think that O'Bama has made a huge mistake by making Palin the focus of so much attention. Now I am wondering if McCain is on the verge of overplaying his hand with Palin.

(1) That McCain ad is misleading. There’s no way the Obama campaign got 30 wolves in that little seaplane.

(2) There’s been a lot of McCain boosterism from the Althouse commentariat of late. There needs to be some attempt at balance and I’m here to help.

In keeping with the animal theme, here is my modest proposal for an Obama commercial:

Barack Obamam is walking in a white neighborhood when he is set upon by John McCain, Sarah Palin, George Bush and Karl Rove. They are dressed as attack dogs. They bully Mr. Obama and they take him to a tree with a noose hanging from a branch. Then they force him to give them his vision, hope and change or else they will lynch him. But they are vain and jealous so they chase each other around the tree until they all turn into a delicious pool of malt liquor. The End.

In a nation so egalitarian, the little guy sharing a beer with the future leader of the free world has a very powerful connotation.

Sure, but it's complete crap. It's a silly fantasy, and a substitute for using other faculties for judgment. No one's going to be having a beer with McCain, or Obama, unless it's in a carefully stage-managed situation. The fact that I might enjoy a conversation with anyone running for office means absolutely squat.

Since he didn't, what's the point? He clearly referred to McCain and his claim to be about "change." My point is McCain ads are appealing to the most credulous among us. Nothing new about that in politics. Same old McSame.

There are no Obama opposition researchers in Alaska. I live here, I know people in the campaigns, and it's just not true.

I would put the burden of proof on McCain to prove it, and not just by citing an unsourced blog. What other proof do they have? Let's demand more from the campaigns when they make accusations like this.

This place is crawling with journalists, yes. (And we'd like them to go away.) But the Obama campaign has added no new staff here since the Palin announcement. In fact, most have left town.

As the past couple weeks have proven so dramatically, there is no difference between the Press and DNC staffers. And they wonder why people are changing the channel and cancelling subscriptions.

I mean, the whole point is not the availability, but the fact that he doesn't put on airs. He's not a rockstar.

It's just IMAGE for chrissake. I'm sure he's real downhome with the staff at any of his many homes. I don't care if he doesn't put on airs. Any thought that he has anything in common with regular people is simply a silly fantasy. I don't care who's fun to have a beer with; we're electing a president, not Norm down at the corner bar.

What major legislation have you sponsored as a US Senator?What major legislation have you introduced as a US Senator?How does being a community organizer give you executive experience?How does teaching law part time qualify you to be President?What is your personal and professional relationship with Emil Jones?Is it true that Emil Jones is your political sponsor and clout?What kind of relationship do you have with the Daley Administration?Will your Attorney General prosecute corruption in Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois?How does Harvard Law review translate into presidential experience?What is your relationship with ex Black Panther Bobby Rush?What is your relationship with ex FALN member Luis Guiterrez?Why did you sponsor an education bill in the Illinois legislature that mandates sex education and education of sexually transmitted diseases in Kindergarten?If you are so against wasteful earmarks, why did you vote for the bridge to nowhere?Did you give Joe Biden healing powers? Why did he ask a man in a wheel chair to stand? Where is Joe Biden?

Listen, believe what you want. I'm just saying the burden of proof is on the accuser, and the only proof they have is an unsourced blog.

For Obama not to have opposition researchers in Alaska would be campaign malpractice. Honestly, when I read John Fund's post, my first thought was, "so what?" I don't need proof he did it; I'd need proof he didn't.

Bill Clinton knows that, and that's why he railed so much about Obama. Sure, part of it is jealousy, but Clinton is the kind of natural pol even a Republican can respect. His political instincts are SUPERB.

Yes, he did, I wouldn't want to rib him for that one. I came across a wedding web site the other day where the bride was in a wheelchair. They met at a karaoke bar; she said "I really liked your song", he said, "if you really liked it, you'd have got up and danced." Of course, in that case he knew the facts and was risking a little humor. It worked.

Sure, but it's complete crap. It's a silly fantasy, and a substitute for using other faculties for judgment.

How well you perceive a candidate relating to a person like yourself isn't a something worthy of consideration when it comes time to vote? You do realize that that's what the old "have a beer with" line refers to, right?

Obama and McCain both had elite upbringings. Biden has been in the Senate since approximately the dawn of time. Palin is solidly middle-class. Now, a few weeks ago Obama made a big stink about how John McCain couldn't relate to the problems of ordinary Americans. Now along comes Sarah Palin, who any rational observer immediately recognizes has a life much closer to that of "ordinary Americans" than any Harvard lawyer or six-term Senator ever could.

Unsurprisingly, Obama and his supporters immediately abandoned the whole "who's in touch" thing and returned to bleating about how all this was a "distraction" from "the issues". Yawn.

I don't know how you can claim Obama had an elite upbringing. He got into very elite colleges, but his upbringing was strictly middle class, albeit it involved more international travel than the average American.

And that is a nice diversion about Biden. He is one of the poorest members of congress and his middle class upbringing is beyond dispute.

I'll agree with you that politicians need those instincts, Vb, but it appalls me that voters persist in clinging to such idiocy. They are not our friends. They don't want to have beer with us. They're not regular folks. We'd be better off if we stopped fantasizing that way. We vote for people based on little more surface glitter. It's sickening. And if you're saying the GOP is better at that than Dems, well, that just makes me feel better about not being a Republican.

How well you perceive a candidate relating to a person like yourself isn't a something worthy of consideration when it comes time to vote?

It's more "how well you deceive yourself into believing...," Revenant. I'm not upset with the politicians for trying to be perceived that way, I'm saying anyone who falls for it is deluding themselves.

Funny, because both Simon and Victoria seem to understand America far better than you do.

No, the difference is that I understand the "have a beer with" factor is important. It is unfortunate and stupid, but it is important--it is why our idiot king GW Bush won twice. Victoria and Simon seem to think that the act these clowns put on to make people like them is genuine, that they really are one of the people. That if Georgie boy weren't president, you really would run into him in a bar in Waco and he would probably buy you a beer. That is delusional.

There's nothing more frightening than a politician who talks and acts like they know better than you. That's why someone who seems to live a real life is so appealing. The fact that Palin sold the private jet, got rid of the driver and the personal chef says a lot. That's the stuff that keeps you grounded: tending to the dull, everyday trappings of real life. You almost can't make too big a deal out of it, in my opinion.

It's a big reason why I favor term limits. A career politician loses any clue of the lives of the people they represent--and whose money they spend.

Obama was on an academic scholarship to that school, they could not afford the tuition otherwise.

If you define "elite" as "rich" then none of the candidates, not even McCain, grew up "elite". What made Obama and McCain's childhoods "elite" was that they spent those childhoods in environments built for and populated by future leaders of American society. Normal middle class folk like Palin -- and, many, many decades ago, Biden -- did not.

Richard Dolan said...Remember how everyone marveled at Team O's skill during the primaries -- his ability to fend off Hillary!, to get past the Rev Wright/Bill Ayers stuff and (mostly) keep his perspective?

The basic problem is that Obama has NEVER had to run against a real GOP candidate before?

1. Alan Keys?2. The previous guy pulled out becauise they published his divorce filings?3. Obama ran as a liberal Dem in a state senate race against no oposition.4. Chicago GOP are what the world calls RINO's. That's like running against the Washington DC GOP

Any thought that he has anything in common with regular people is simply a silly fantasy.

His son (sons?) are in the service, right Beth? He might have that in common with some regular folk.

Also, he seems quite at ease -- energized even -- with a strong woman at his side working to get a job done. I missed that with Obama, unless you want to pull out the "he and Michelle seem to work well together" card that the Democrats seemed to be playing so often to their female base, before McCain pulled the upset in picking Sarah Palin to work alongside him...

I would put the burden of proof on McCain to prove it, and not just by citing an unsourced blog. What other proof do they have? Let's demand more from the campaigns when they make accusations like this.

Dude, watch the ad. The ad states that the WSJ (that's a real newspaper, fyi), not some blog, reported that the lawyers had gone to Alaska.

No, the difference is that I understand the "have a beer with" factor is important. It is unfortunate and stupid, but it is important--it is why our idiot king GW Bush won twice.

You are right. But I'd add that people run from patronizing elitists as much as they are drawn to the "regular guy."

Certainly when people sized him up next to the snooty and stiff Al Gore, many found Bush preferable--even though everyone knew both men grew up privileged sons of prominent politicians.

I think it has less to do with why Bush got elected the second time, although it didn't hurt that Kerry came across as another snotty bastard like Gore.

But the other side of the coin is: as much as republicans might be enamored of the "regular guy," democrats are just as likely to swoon over their own set of desirable traits. Considering your 2 main candidates had very weak resumes -- Obama and Hillary -- I'd say your criteria are at least as questionable.

Any thought that he has anything in common with regular people is simply a silly fantasy.

Another thing... I know you think the whole POW experience business is overrated, Beth, but like you say ... this is all about IMAGE.

And surely there are regular people who can relate, not necessarily to be locked up in a foreign country for years, but to the IDEA of being trapped somewhere, in a situation not of your own making, and having to gut it out under pressure.

"No retreat, baby, no surrender." It's a very common American theme actually. Put to the test physically and mentally, breaking perhaps, but hanging in there for the ultimate triumph. Heck defining "success" as merely getting through and surviving the ordeal. Heck, don't almost all Americans -- men and women -- have a story like that, whether it's a job situation, something like law school or other higher ed that you gut your way through, or even a bad marriage, or trying personal times?

Transcend the minor details, and there's a rich storytelling there that people can empathize with and respect. That's why the formal "community organizing" position got such a laugh -- regular people do that every day via their churches, school boards and neighborhood organizations. No professional outsiders needed to come in and organize people to meet their daily needs.

If it was jackals, then that would leave blood-sucking vampire bats out in the Cold.

Unless all the Democrat and Republican corporatists that have been looting this country since the Bush I era are the new bloodsucking vampire bats.

But if the multimillionaire Congressional crony fatcats turned out of Freddie and Fanny Mac and dumping up to 5.4 trillion in long-term debt on US taxpayers are the new bloodsucking vampire bats, why did they need golden parachutes?

These animal analogies are so confusing.

McCain is the tomcat. You know, the swaggering type that as they get old, get nastier and more erratic..claw their owners as they pass by, vomit hairballs..

I'm deleting my Althouse bookmark and replacing it with Sullivan. Althouse revels in the most superficial campaign trivialities and imagines she knows peoples' intent and motives. Sullivan deals, instead, with facts and reality.

"McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States."

The fact that Palin sold the private jet, got rid of the driver and the personal chef says a lot.

You didn't fall this line of crap, did you? Almost all states sell their assets on ebay makiing her no different than any other Gov, and Palin ended taking a loss of $500,000 selling to a political contributor to her campaign. The plane was purchased by the wildly unpopular Murkoswski and become an issue already in the 2004 campaign. All the candidates running in 2006 had pledged to sell the plane!

She didn't fire the chef until 8 months after she was governor, after her kids left the mansion for the summer, and only after the legislative session was out of session! The line about "I can make my kids their own sandwiches" is pure bullroar.

Sounds pleasing enough though.

"I told them to take their bridge and shove it!""I sold that fancy plane on ebay!"I got rid of the executive chef! Poor kids!"

Beth said..."I guess we should assume that McCain's not employing an opposition researchers, nor has he used 'lipstick on a pig' as a metaphor in any campaign."

Beth, with respect, I think you're somewhat off base here. Yes, "lipstick on a pig" is a common figure of speech. Yes, McCain said as much in describing Clinton's healthcare plan. Those are diversions. When McCain said that about Clinton's plan, he was quite clearly referring to her plan, not to her. Moreover, just because something is a common figure of speech doesn't mean that Obama didn't mean to reference Palin, a fortiori given that she had just given a speech the week before where "lipstick" was the punchline and given that the next line seems to refer to McCain. It's not the figure of speech that's offensive, it's the use of the figure of speech in a derogatory fashion.

I'm deleting my Althouse bookmark and replacing it with Sullivan. Althouse revels in the most superficial campaign trivialities and imagines she knows peoples' intent and motives. Sullivan deals, instead, with facts and reality.

"Why that's wrong: This is a deliberately misleading accusation. It came hours after the Obama campaign released a TV ad critical of McCain's votes on public education. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama did vote for but was not a sponsor of legislation dealing with sex ed for grades K-12.

But the legislation allowed local school boards to teach "age-appropriate" sex education, not comprehensive lessons to kindergartners, and it gave schools the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators.

Republican Alan Keyes tried to use Obama's vote against him in the 2004 U.S. Senate race. At the time, Obama spoke about wanting to protect young children from abuse. He made clear then that he was not supporting teaching kindergartners about explicit details of sex."

On a far more important note than this silly political twaddle, congrats to everyone who worked on the amazing Large Hadron Collider!I know a lot of people who have been working on parts of the LHC for several years. The effort put forth was amazing.Just getting the beam to circulate properly was a huge undertaking. The collisions will come once the energy levels get sufficiently high enough.

At first, the attitude of the media was understandable in terms of their desperation to destroy Palin and elect Obama. It seems to me that their increasingly shrill tone - Klein is a good example, as is Sully - reflects an industry in outright panic. They have burned their bridges with the McCain campaign, and yet the people at large - the people the media so arrogantly believes it speaks for - have decided to camp on the far bank, with McCain. I look at these increasingly shrill attacks and see an industry that knows that it has passed the point of no return: they always wanted Obama in office, but now it is a matter of survival, because they perceive that the upshot of their behavior since 8/29 will be their total exclusion from the McCain administration in the increasingly likely event that it comes to pass. McCain and Palin will simply ignore them, and go directly to C-SPAN, PBS and new media.

The MSM are gatekeepers trying to get used to a paradigm where there are no walls, and so no use for gates or persons to guard them.

AlphaLiberal said... "Here's a video of John McCain using the pig ... lipstick line. Please, Ann. Use your mind reading powers to tell us what he really meant. You do it all the time for Obama."

See my reply to Beth, above. The mere phrase "lipstick on a pig" is not the problem; it's the use of that phrase in a way arguably designed to insult Palin that is the problem. I think it's wonderful how the left's reaction to Palin has proven that red herring is the least-endangered species on the planet; this almost wilful inability to grasp the point is almost comical. Almost.

The video you just posted actually proves my point about McCain's use of the phrase: McCain was plainly referring to the healthcare plan, to to Clinton herself. If he had referred to Clinton as being a pig with new lipstick, that would be offensive.

"This 8-page comic is the third in a series of youth protection comics for Cub Scout aged kids featuring Akela, Baloo, and T.C. It illustrates scenarios that advise kids about the dangers of strangers and inappropriate behavior by adults toward children, and what to do in scary situations."

Now, why do Republicans want to stop warning children about unwanted sexual advances? I know you've got some pervos in your party, but now you all want to stop warning children (in age-appropriate ways)?

"...it's the use of that phrase in a way arguably designed to insult Palin that is the problem."

You don't provide any text or anything but sheer opinion to back this up. No quotes, no nothing.

Obama was referring to the grotesque charade of McCain's campaign pretending he's for "change."

This is a stock tactic by Republicans. Feigned outrage over a remark to distract from the real content. In this case, it's that McCain, who bragged in the primary that he voted with Bush 90% of the time, represents change.

Maybe you could add something useful to the conversation. Either back up your assertion with a fact or tell us how McCain will change anything from the last 8 years. How will McCain differ from Bush?

Thanks for all the very convoluted reasons why none of those points count. You have perfectly illustrated the utter desperation the rest of us are laughing about.

I know you have special reasons to be afraid of Palin. She certainly hurts Hillary's chances down the line; bests her in almost every respect. Speaking of which, I can't think of--or imagine-- Hillary giving up any creature comforts for any reason. She chases the dollar as well as anyone. Still owes quite a bit of money to a lot of hard-working people out there, in fact.

Actually it is true. The original bill was only for grades 6-12. Obama personally changed the bill to add Kindergarten to it. The documentation has been out all day- the actual penciled in corrected bill and the amended bill. All Initialed by the Chosen One. All you had to do was look beyond Sullivan’s bung hole.

AlphaLiberal said... Andrew Sullivan makes a strong case that John McCain is a man completely lacking in honor and integrity to be President of the USA.

I'm deleting my Althouse bookmark and replacing it with Sullivan. Althouse revels in the most superficial campaign trivialities and imagines she knows peoples' intent and motives. Sullivan deals, instead, with facts and reality.

"McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States."

Andrew Sullivan ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! The asshat of the year. As to character, Obama has none. Remember, he is a Chicago Democrat, a product of a corrupt political entity, a patronage beneficiary and a patronage pimp. Giving Obama character is like putting perfume on a prostitute.

KnoxI'm desperate for pointing out the garbage floated about? Okee. So why does she have to constantly lie about her record and refuse to answer any questions if she is so great? You'd think they would be parading her all over the networks. Doesn't sound like a confident campaign to me. The "Big Bounce!" turns out to be a 2% swing relegated to primarily people in the South. Imagine that. The massive shift they were hoping for ain't happening. Hence, the gutter ads. It won't be won in the air anyway though, it will be won on the ground - where Obama's operation dwarfs McCain's.

When Secessionist Sarah gets 18 million votes, give me a holla. So far, she has one.

AlphaLiberal said... "You don't provide any text or anything but sheer opinion to back this up. No quotes, no nothing."

What are you talking about? We all know the quotes that are at issue. There's no dispute about the words that came out of Obama's mouth. We've all seen the video. The issue is one of interpretation. No purpose is served by reiterating that information and you know it full well. Either stop with the dilatory crap and engage with the point, or stop taking up bandwidth.

Most inapropriate touching of children happens at the hands of a family member.

That's nice, UWS. So when parents complain that you're teaching their five-year-old about sex, you can say "we consider you a potential child molester". That'll win hearts and minds, I'm sure.

So attacking Obama on this subject has very real consequences.

What real consequences? The program had an opt-out clause, little brain -- don't you think that parents who really WERE molesting their children might pull them from the class?

The only consequence of killing the program would be less money for public school teachers, and thus less money for Democratic campaign contributions. The well-being of kids has nothing to do with it -- or pretty much anything else, where public schools are concerned.

When McCain said that about Clinton's plan, he was quite clearly referring to her plan, not to her.

Simon, watch the clip. He didn't say a damn thing about Palin - he called McCain's claim of the "change" meme putting lipstick on a pig. Only an opportunistic, harebrained play of the sexism card can make that about Palin.

Well, no, they wouldn't. That's just stupid. Deeply, deeply stupid. Playground stupid. I know you are but what am I stupid. The sort of stupid that makes a person wonder what the fuck am I doing writing stupid little notes in response to immensely stupid little comments on the internet? Thanks for the reality check.

Context, Beth. People were already talking about her "pit bull with lipstick" hockey-mom comment, so mentioning a pig with lipstick in relation to the McCain ticket sounded like a reference to her whether it was meant as one or not.

Only an opportunistic, harebrained play of the sexism card can make that about Palin.

If women only got outraged about real sexism the world would be a very different place. Intended or not, Obama's remark was no less plausibly sexist than George Allen's "Macaca" remark was plausibly racist.

People, meaning Palin? Once again, the whambulance is on the way. She wants to introduce an image of herself and can't handle it when it's used against her. I'm underwhelmed.

Still, it's a wildly stretched context. He clearly was referring to McCain's claims. If there was a little double entendre going on, I don't care. It's more of the same old GOP can dish it out but can't take it. She's a tough conservative feminist, or she's a little hothouse flower. Y'all need to make your minds.

I heard the joke repeated by a number of non-Republican women the day after the speech; they thought it was her best line.

Once again, the whambulance is on the way.

It is an objective fact that a lot of non-Republican women saw Obama's remark as sexist. You can accuse them all of crying "waah" if you like; in fact, I'd prefer it if you did. The more people Obama supporters alienate with their arrogance, the less likely I am to have that dolt as my next President.

She wants to introduce an image of herself and can't handle it when it's used against her.

When what is used against her? You just got done saying the remark wasn't aimed at her; now you're whining that she can't handle the remark being aimed at her. Make up your mind, please. While you're at it, explain your basis for saying "she can't handle it". I haven't heard Palin accuse Obama of sexism -- have you?

It's more of the same old GOP can dish it out but can't take it.

Given how many phony claims of racism the Obama campaign and its supporters have thrown out over the past few months it is funny, to say the least, to hear one of *you* talk about people who can dish it out but can't take it. :)

But have we had 11 days of non-stop Palin here on Althouse? Adorned with hundreds of message a day?

I can't remember a topic like that in Althouse history. Not even one that came close.

A little bit of a run on Obama in August, but not nearly so hot. And I wonder if all those people bitchin' about how Ann was spending all her (blog) time on Obama feel about Ann spending all her (blog) time on Palin?

garage mahal said... KnoxI'm desperate for pointing out the garbage floated about? Okee. So why does she have to constantly lie about her record and refuse to answer any questions if she is so great?

Hillary CLinton lied about her record all over the media and they ate it up. Obama has no record and the media is eating him up.

Why should Palin have to justify the truth? The way she has been treated, she can pick and choose who to talk to and screw the rest. The media is owed nothing, they are not elected or appointed watch dogs. They act like rabid, untrained, wild attack dogs.

As the Ghost of a Gentleman, dead these 260 Years & more, you may imagine the Insults & Calumnies to which I have been witness. Nothing more stabs the Conscience, and arouses tender Feelings of Sympathy in a gallant Gentleman, than Slanders & Libels direct'd without Justice against a Member of the Fair Sex, especially if Comparisons be made with Beasts.

Mr. Obama's late Jest upon Pigs in a Political Oration would at first appear to be such a thing. The careful Observer will see, however, only a small Slander grown out of Proportion. The Intent was to paint a Picture of Mrs. Palin in the Mind of the Audience as a Sow. Such a crude Jape, unworthy of a Gentleman of Mr. Obama's Reputation, should not, in itself, arouse excessively chivalrous & gallant Sentiments in her male Admirers; 'twas but a passing Jest upon Mrs. Palin's own Words. Mr. Obama also made it with no little Indirection, as befits a Gentleman who would perhaps insult a Lady, altho' the Audience wanted no Hint to take his Meaning.

Yet, Madam, there remains another View of such petty Barbs. Habitual vehement Jesting against Women renders the Conscience of both the Teller & Hearer insensible by Degrees to very real Wrongs, nay mortal Injuries, that may in the end be done. Such crude & unfeeling Sentiments seem to well up naturally in brutish Men of poor Breeding & little Sense. They reqire strong Correction, lest the noblest Impulses of the human Heart be utterly extinguish'd and Society corrupt'd.

By way of Example, the following Account is from a London News-paper in my Day, shewing where ill-temper'd Designs of mix't Pigs & Women may lead:—

The London Journal 22nd August 1730.

We hear that at the late Assizes held at Bridgwater, an Indictment was preferred against a Sow-Gelder, for attempting to spay his Wife; but she refused to prosecute, and acknowledged her Forgiveness of him, and desired the Court would do the same: However, the Court remanded him back to Prison, and, for the sake of the good Women in general, ordered him to remain there 'till he could give 400l. Security for his good Behaviour during Life.

The Occasion of this vile Attempt, was this: The Sow-Gelder being in Company with several other married Men over a Pot of Ale, they all join’d in Complaint of the Fruitfulness of their Wives, because of the Charges brought upon them thereby; and asking him, whether he could not do by their Wives as by other Animals, he said he could; and they all agreed their good Women should undergo the Operation, provided he would begin with his own: This, with a great Oath, he undertook; and going Home, by Violence gagg’d and bound his Wife, and laying her on a Table, made a transverse Incision on the side of her Belly; but after much Puzzling, and putting the poor Woman to great Torment, he found there was some Difference between the Situation of the Parts in the rational & irrational Animals, and so, sewing up the Wound, he was forced to give up the Experiment. The Woman in her first Agonies appear'd strenuously against him, but being Recovered by the Time of the Trial, was so generous as to forgive him, and plead for his Pardon, as above.

I remember to have read one Instance (if I mistake not) of theDuke of Cleve’s Sow-Gelder, who actually perform’d this Operation on his Daughter, whom he suspect'd to be young with Child by an inveigling Courtier; but as he went through-stitch with his Work, so his Prince wen through-stitch with him, putting him to a cruel & exemplary Death for so inhuman an Action.

* * * * * * * *

This Account ravels several Strands that may be pull'd from the Life Story of Mrs. Palin. Nay, they are some of the Warp & Woof of the Stuff of a modern Civilized Society, where Children are count'd as an Expense, and being rid of them the Provenance of Physick. Our Sow-Gelder wanted only Knowledge of Modern Chiurgeury to compleat his Task, and so excuse himself from the Bother & Expense of Parenthood, continuing, as he would, Relations with his Wife.

Mrs. Palin & her Family have woven a pretty Tapestry, after their Fashion, from these Threads. The Sow-Gelder and his poor Wife made a very different Picture; shewing that Selfishness and ill-regard for Women, indeed, clownish Disrespect for the very Act of Procreation, are not the especial Possession of this Age.

Beggging your Pardon for the excessive Length of my Epistle, but praying that rational & sensible Persons will be reminded thus of the Difference between a Woman & a Pig, and so Men & Beasts, I am,

Madam,

Your humble & obt. Servant,

Sir Archy

N.B.—I beg the Pardon of both the charming impressaria of this Theater of Topicks (as I call it), and those Members of the Audience who may have been put out by my frequent Amendations to this Epistle; and, for its removal for several Hours To-Day. I had simply thought to move it to a more prominent Position and pertinent Topick.

I see that M. Bissage, whose Good-Will I value above all else, has already made Reference to this Location; so, I reluctantly replace a Copy of the Original, which has since been publish'd elsewhere, praying that Professor Althouse and the Publick will understand that I do not attempt to thrust myself upon the Audience, but only accomodate the Desires of my Friends.